User talk:MamaDoc

Welcome!
Also, you can ask questions at the wp:teahouse!

Another issue may be the use of primary sources
wp:primary sources / wp:original research may be an issue as Wikipedia is not a publisher of original content. Pier-reviewed articles would be better, Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I just wanted to clarify and reassure you that MedicineX is an academic conference at Stanford School of Medicine focused on scholarly work at the intersection of technology, design and medicine. You can read about it at and see the call for abstracts at http://medicinex.stanford.edu/call-for-presenters-2017/ Every submission is peer reviewed before being accepted. The selection criteria and selectivity is among the highest in the world, reflecting stanford's reputation and standards for scientific research. The citation that I provided as a reference was a link to the online abstract that was accepted, following peer review. If you would like, since this is my area of research and I have access to the Stanford database, I am happy to send the paper, link to the presentation, data or publication or even forward a few links online to previous presentations in years past, such as http://medicinex.stanford.edu/accepted-presentations/ under the Business Tab. You can find the listing under the title neuropsychology based behavior design through mobile gaming. Let me know if and how I may help. Thanks! MamaDoc (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Would you please chime in on this? I am not sure what to recommend here. This is in regard to this edit to which I reverted, the messages here: User talk:Jim1138 and on this page. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: Doc James mentioned he is on holiday. Jim1138 (talk) 06:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, got it...thank you and I look forward to hearing from Doc James. In addition to clinical research, I am also a psychiatrist (MD) at the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences, so happy to discuss with him and/or other contributors, who may have or seek a medical opinion. MamaDoc (talk) 06:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If you want to make your expertise public, you could add it to user:MamaDoc. See user:Doc James for an example. Also, I would recommend setting up your email in case you loose your password or your account gets compromised. It also allows others to communicate with you about issues privately. The mailer won't get your email address unless you reply directly or use "Email this user". Set email up with the "Preferences" tab at the top of any page while you are logged in. I have a "disposable email" for mine. That way, if I loose control, I can easily change my email.
 * There is wp:Reference desk and wp:Reference desk/Science. Do note: Legal or medical advice is prohibited. Further information is available at Wikipedia's legal and medical disclaimers. See also Medical advice guidelines. (copied from wp:Reference desk). Thanks for volunteering! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I would think that Wikipedia is full of potential psych PhD thesis. Finding out what makes some of these editors tick would be quite interesting. OCD is probably a factor. This editor: User:Arthur_Rubin/IP_list wp:links one irrelevant word in an article and repeats. Quickly someone figures it out, their edits are undone and and a wp:block imposed. Soon, (minutes to days) it happens again. I myself, would be a candidate. I can spend hours undoing vandalism, disruptive edits, and unsourced/poorly sourced content. Evidence: wp:NOW about 100 now... Coming up with a methodology to counter vandals would be useful. I think all too much of my work simply enrages these people. The list of official warnings: WP:Template messages/User talk namespace Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

I am not so sure about making my expertise and profile public because of the type of clinical work I do. I will have to think about that but thanks for the suggestion. Also, I did not mean to suggest that I could offer medical advice via wikipedia but only to serve as a resource for editing articles pertaining to that topic, if appropriate and it can add value. I have done it in the past several times anonymously but i hope I can be of more value to this community going forward. Thanks for taking the time and for all your helpful feedback! As for the potential for research with wikipedia, i know a few colleagues on the east coast who study patterns/activity in quora, wikipedia and even other social media communities. There are specific circuits in the brain which respond to the mechanisms of such hooks/reward mechanisms in these types of services. That said, I am not an expert in those areas but happy to look at it, if helpful. My interest and focus is on neural circuits relating to decision making, habit formation, food behaviors and eating disorders, hence my edit based on the recently accepted abstract to the conference. Looking forward to being more involved with wikipedia and to your guidance as I learn this community's protocols. Do you advise that I should I wait for Doc James to respond or is there any one else I should correspond with about my previous edit? Please let me know. Thanks! MamaDoc (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It sounds advisable that you maintain anonymity. You should see wp:WikiProject Psychology, wp:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force and/or wp:WikiProject Psychology Also note their respective talk pages.
 * Just making the advice thing clear.
 * Why don't you put that digital vaccines item back up. I'll leave it alone. I don't know about others. It would really help if you have a direct link to the abstract. Here is a link to your change. I would say it should be toned down. It seems a bit promotional and, personally, I don't like the use of "innovation" which seem like wp:puffery and advert. Perhaps remove the "innovation" From

"ED conference, pertaining to methods that are a result of software based innovations through use of neuropsychology and cognitive behavior therapy. Such a digital vaccine candidate has been tested in Phase 2 trials involving children, possibly paving the way for such innovation to reduce the risk of lifestyle diseases."
 * to something like:

"A digital vaccine which may reduce the risk of lifestyle diseases is undergoing phase 2 clinical trials..."
 * Gotta run. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 00:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again. I have added myself to wp:WikiProject Medicine and wp:WikiProject Psychology. Excited! Also, thanks for your suggestion about removing "innovation" from my original edit to vaccine. Since you suggested that I find a reference with a direct link to an online peer reviewed abstract, I am adding a link to a previous publication by Prakash at Stanford in 2015, although the title or abstract/presentation did not frame the method as a digital vaccine, at that time. I am also adding another reference to two trials published by another group of behavioral scientists at Baylor College of Medicine (Dr Craig Johnston and Dr Jenny Moreno), which I think adds an academic group's independent findings going back to 2014. In case it helps, I can even try to find a paper by a group from Carnegie Mellon University led by Prof.Krishnan, which published a paper on the topic in the society of health informatics. However, it is my opinion that the citation to Prakash's work is relevant, as his work set the foundation for originating such a method to lifestyle disease risk reduction, going back to his peer reviewed presentation at Stanford in 2014. Would you please give me some feedback about the following revision to my original edit? Let me know what you think...thanks in advance

"ED conference, pertaining to software based interventions that use neuropsychology and cognitive behavior therapy. One such intervention, which has been tested in Phase 2 trials involving children, has shown evidence of a vaccine candidate that reduces the risk of lifestyle diseases."

Thanks! MamaDoc (talk) 09:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So the guideline you are looking for is WP:MEDRS. Basically we should be using review articles (which are peer reviewed but not the same as peer reviewed articles), major textbooks, or statements from major goverments or IGOs. A conference abstract is not sufficient. Let me know if that makes sense? Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you I will not add it to the article at this point per your suggestion.

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!